2015 ORS
133.555¹

Hearing

(1) Before acting on the application, the judge may examine on oath the affiants, and the applicant and any witnesses the applicant may produce, and may call such witnesses as the judge considers necessary to a decision. The judge shall make and keep a record of any testimony taken before the judge. The record shall be admissible as evidence on any motion to suppress.

Failure of issuing judge to make and keep record of affiant's oral testimony supple­menting affidavit as re­quired by this sec­tion does not justify exclusion of evidence seized under search warrant where issuing judge testifies to substance of supple­mental testimony es­tab­lishing probable cause for issuance of warrant and defendant is not otherwise prejudiced by lack of recorda­tion. State v. Mathis, 24 Or App 53, 544 P2d 170 (1976)

In General

The fact that one place may have been more likely spot in which to find evidence sought did not prevent magistrate from concluding that there also existed probable cause to search an­oth­er prop­erty for the same or similar evidence. State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404, 657 P2d 1223 (1983)

Where affidavit es­tab­lished affiant's knowledge and experience in marijuana growing opera­tions, and in­for­ma­­tion by three citizen informants suggested that marijuana growing opera­tion existed in defendant's structure, and where informants independently cross-corroborated each others' in­for­ma­­tion and affiant could independently corroborate by per­sonal observa­tion por­tions of informants' in­for­ma­­tion, and where power company records showed unusual power consump­tion in winter months and defendant's shed had recently-installed roof vents, the magistrate did not err in finding probable cause to believe evidence of marijuana growing opera­tion would be found in defendant's shed. State v. Prince, 93 Or App 106, 760 P2d 1356 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Probable cause require­ment for issuance of warrant was met when of­fi­cer's investiga­tion developed in­for­ma­­tion from which magistrate could conclude more likely than not that seizable things would be found in place to be searched. State v. Chambless, 111 Or App 76, 824 P2d 1183 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where written duplicate warrant prepared by police of­fi­cer ma­te­ri­ally exceeded scope of oral authoriza­tion for telephonic warrant, search executed under duplicate warrant was unconstitu­tional even though it was within scope of oral authoriza­tion. State v. Martin/Dills, 170 Or App 366, 12 P3d 548 (2000)

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.